/roulette_archive/ - Archive for the roulette board

>>119
Its typical solipsism

Unfortunely for you the majority of braindead idiots you meet on the internet exist in real life( although yes bots exist)

>>124
I think it depends on the website and forum, twitter and reddit are filled to the brim with bots and shills, particularly on popular political subs in reddit's case. The shift on r/politics from normie, but diverse, politics before the 2016 election to the most obnoxious democrat circlejerk on the internet was not organic, to say nothing of the reddit line on Ukraine. On twitter its known that most of the like are fake and paid for, or that bots accounts are used to repeat the same identical tweets on some special interest, or artificially inflate tweets that are in line with the agenda of whoever paid for the bots. Even when I made tweets critical of US foreign policy in some way I would have obvious bots like and retweet it.
On forums, including imageboards, and in threads here, certain types of discussion about certain contentious issues or conspiracy theories tend to draw an abnormal amount of posts clearly seeking to derail the thread in a variety of ways.
Dead internet theory is an exaggeration of the real issue of digital astroturfing and the corporate-intelligence state's goals of controlling the internet to prevent the masses from being more informed and organizing.

Dead Internet Theory seems to me to be a mystification of digital-age capitalism. It's easier to imagine the internet being secretly taken over and replaced by a malevolent deep state Illuminati AI than it is to imagine the blind idiot gods of STEM Valley and the market being fallible. Everything DI "theorists" point towards such as
>corporate social media platforms unseating individual and independent websites
>monetization
>the attention economy
>walled gardens
aren't mysteries at all, in fact their origins and mechanisms are easy to trace. It's not surprising that DI is so popular with rightoid-adjacent schizos, as it allows them to acknowledge their experience on the internet has gotten less enjoyable (it has for everyone) without having to admit it's /theirguys/ (capitalists) who are responsible for it.

A lot of DI argumentation is also extremely shallow. Just like Flat Earthers, they commonly seem to fall into imploring people that "something just feels wrong" and if they just "really look" hard enough they'll see the truth. There is something almost charmingly boomerish in how they're convinced internet comment sections aren't real because "no one can really be THAT stupid, right?"

People tend to forget that running bots isn't free. Bots are of course used in either corporate shilling & marketing campaigns or government propaganda, on account platforms these are usually either new accounts or stand-by inactive old accounts. However these differ from the DIT shit by:
>having a clear & realistic goal (marketing or propaganda)
>end at some point where the bots are discarded or deactivated
>usually only target big platforms
DIT on the other hand presents no explanation as to why and who is doing it, is being done indefinitely, and takes place everywhere from big social media to some obscure chatroom.
So we have the classic "it just isn't financially feasible on this scale and length" and "it has an unclear or petty motive" conspiracy problems.

>>137
Makes most sense when viewing the internet as a consent factory of GPT4 bots. Sure some people are interacting with the bots, but they're getting deboonked by WaPo articles at the speed of light, changing their and other readers' opinions.

The question is less "is the internet empty?" and more "just how empty is it?"

We know it's full of bots. The question is what the proportions are and how much conversation is human-human vs human-bot vs bot-bot.

>>119
It's wrong, but with a hint of truth.
It's wrong in its basic premise, that most communities are just bots and so on and that real human beings are few and far between. But it's true in the sense that this may as well be the case, because contemporary web design funnels actual human beings to act practically indistinguishably from bots. New and original content is less likely to get interaction than a twist on something old and familiar, or even basic bitch call and response bullshit catchphrases a-la-/v/.

>>129
>On forums, including imageboards, and in threads here, certain types of discussion about certain contentious issues or conspiracy theories tend to draw an abnormal amount of posts clearly seeking to derail the thread in a variety of ways.
A lot of the time this is just people seeking (you)s in the most efficient way possible. Speaking from personal experience, I've done a lot of off-topic or tangentially on-topic posting in threads about [redacted] issues or Ukraine mostly because it's more likely to actually get replies (or provide fodder for saying something funny) than lurking in the surprisingly slow /itg/ or /leftybritpol/. Sometimes it's even just fun to be contrari– a devil's advocate.

Now I'm a narcissistic weirdo with a sense of humour, so I approach it in a certain way, but if you just wanted to maximize how many (you)s or your apparent influence over the thread while posting as anon-without-tripflag, it wouldn't be hard to behave in a way "indistinguishable" from someone on langley's payroll. indeed, arousing that suspicion would be a great way to rake in (you)s.

There is some truth to it. A lot of sites are full of bots and hired shills to try and lure in users or give fake reviews of products. It's not cope it's a symptom of the corporatization of the internet. As communities get suffocated out by large sites there will be people left feeling alienated from socializing online all together and something has to replace them. It's not literally empty but it sure is far more sparse in plurality of diverse online communities.

A lot of truth in it imo.

It seems like the way propaganda works in the west. The media does actually inform us of events, but spins them in such a way as to support the hegemonic narrative.

On the internet, not everything is a bot or an op but there is such a level of control possible that organic human activity online can be nudged + spun into extremely limited + shallow + unproductive + controllable behaviors. That's why the internet is empty and important data is ephemeral, stripped of it's potential utility.